1. Richard Mouw on Spiritual Consumerism's Upside:
I once heard an economist rail against the consumerist patterns of our society, illustrating his point by speaking disdainfully of people who think "that economic freedom means having the right to choose between McDonald's and Burger King." I must confess that on occasion I take a few minutes to think about whether to buy a Quarter Pounder or a Whopper. But what irked me about the economist who put down the kind of culinary choice that some of us consider non-trivial is that he is a wine connoisseur. I recently heard him go into great detail about the relative virtues of two kinds of Cabernet Sauvignon.
The question I wanted to pose to him is not unlike the one I would ask folks who speak disparagingly about a family that switches from a local Methodist parish to a new megachurch charismatic congregation that they find more spiritually fulfilling. Why is that decision a manifestation of consumerism while, say, the moves of Lutheran theologians—I have in mind Father Richard John Neuhaus and Jaroslav Pelikan—to enter into Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not? At the very least, we need to be careful that we are not betraying an elitist bias with the way we toss around the "consumerism" label. The consumption of sermons and worship styles by an ordinary Christian family looking for an enriching spiritual life may not be all that different from the scholars' consumption of theologies and liturgies.
2. If Rube Goldberg designed a website it might look something like this. (Hint: Move your cursor over the cup.)
3. Charles Lehardy on The Politics of Toothaches:
Eleven hundred bucks so far, and in a few days I'll get fitted for a $500 cap — you can't leave holes in your teeth, I guess. I could have had a decent-sized plasma-screen TV for what I've sunk into saving this tooth.
If I hadn't had insurance or money in my piggy bank, my least expensive option would have been extraction. Which is why you see so many poor people with gaps in their smiles, like the young woman behind the counter at my local Burger King who smiles with her lips closed to hide her missing teeth.
Good teeth are one of the differences between the wealthy and the poor. We who can afford modern dentistry rarely give our teeth much thought. Others, like the young lady at Burger King, seem to think of little else.
4. The Best Super Bowl Ad of the Year
5. Michael Pollan on the "sentimental economics" of food:
And why should a nation produce its own food when others can produce it more cheaply? A dozen reasons leap to mind, but most of them the Steven Blanks of the world–and they are legion–are quick to dismiss as sentimental. I’m thinking of the sense of security that comes from knowing that your community, or country, can feed itself; the beauty of an agricultural landscape; the outlook and kinds of local knowledge that farmers bring to a community; the satisfaction of buying food from a farmer you know rather than the supermarket; the locally inflected flavor of a raw-milk cheese or honey. All those things–all those pastoral values–globalization proposes to sacrifice in the name of efficiency and economic growth.
Though you do begin to wonder who is truly the realist in this debate, and who the romantic. We live, as [Wendell] Berry has written (in an essay called “The Total Economy”), in an era of “sentimental economics,” since the promise of global capitalism, much like the promise of communism before it, ultimately demands an act of faith: that if we permit the destruction of certain things we value here and now we will achieve a greater happiness and prosperity at some unspecified future time. As Lenin put it, in a sentiment the WTO endorses in its rulings every day, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
From The Omnivore’s Dilemma, p. 256 (HT: A Thinking Reed)
6. Quote of the Week: "Virtue cannot be purchased with all the money in the world. Conservatism that doesn't conserve virtue is not simply another variation on the Fall. The primary challenge our nation faces is not economic, it is not educational, it is moral. And our pulpits ring with hollow words telling us how to feel better about ourselves." -- James Kushiner in Touchstone Magazine
7. James Q. Wilson asks, "Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?"
Evangelical Christians have a high opinion not just of the Jewish state but of Jews as people. That Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal doesn’t seem to bother evangelicals, despite their own conservative politics. Yet Jews don’t return the favor: in one Pew survey, 42 percent of Jewish respondents expressed hostility to evangelicals and fundamentalists. As two scholars from Baruch College have shown, a much smaller fraction—about 16 percent—of the American public has similarly antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists.
Wilson thinks that most evangelicals support the Jews because they are dispensationalists. While that is partially true, it does not account for the fact that the majority of non-dispys (like me) also support both the Jewish people (because anti-Semitism is corrosive and must be defended against) and Israel (because it is in our national interest to defend democratic allies in the Middle East).
8. Jennifer F. on babies as the enemy of sex:
The message I'd heard loud and clear was that the purpose of sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential, almost to the point of being forgotten about altogether. This mindset laid the foundation of my views on abortion. Because I saw sex as being closed to the possibility to life by default, I thought of pregnancies that weren't planned as akin to being struck by lightning while walking down the street -- something totally unpredictable, undeserved, that happened to people living normal lives.
Being pro-choice for me (and I'd imagine with many others) was actually motivated out of love and caring: I just didn't want women to have to suffer, to have to devalue themselves by dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Because it was an inherent part of my worldview that everyone except people with "hang-ups" eventually has sex and sex is, under normal circumstances, only about the relationship between the two people involved, I got lured into one of the oldest, biggest, most tempting lies in human history: to dehumanize the enemy. Babies had become the enemy because of their tendencies to pop up and ruin everything; and just as societies are tempted to dehumanize the fellow human beings who are on the other side of the lines in wartime, so had I, and we as a society, dehumanized the enemy of sex.
(HT: The Point)
9. A Philosopher's Notes on Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1-2
10. From Neil Postman's brilliant 1985 book "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business":
In studying the Bible as a young man, I found intimations of the idea that forms of media favor particular kinds of content and therefore are capable of taking command of a culture. I refer specifically to the Decalogue, the Second Commandment of which prohibits the Israelites from making any concrete images of anything, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath the earth.” I wondered then, as so many others have, as to why the God of these people would have included instructions on how they were to symbolize, or not symbolize, their experience. It is a strange injunction to include as part of an ethical system unless its author assumed a connection between forms of human communication and the quality of a culture. We may hazard a guess that a people who are being asked to embrace an abstract, universal deity would be rendered unfit to do so by the habit of drawing pictures or making statues or depicting their ideas in any concrete, iconographic forms. The God of the Jews was to exist in the Word and through the Word, an unprecedented conception requiring the highest order of abstract thinking. Iconography thus became blasphemy so that a new kind of God could enter a culture. People like ourselves who are in the process of converting their culture from word-centered to image-centered might profit by reflecting on this Mosaic injunction. But even if I am wrong in these conjectures, it is, I believe, a wise and particularly relevant supposition that the media of communication available to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the culture’s intellectual and social preoccupations.
(HT: Crunchy Con)
11. The Cost of Raising Children -- A table which shows the estimated annual costs of raising a child, based on a survey by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
12. The Boston Globe on the New Monastics:
The idea of a Protestant monk is not necessarily a contradiction in terms. The Anglican and Episcopal Churches have supported monastic communities since the 1840s. But to most evangelicals, the elaborate liturgy and love of history and hierarchy typical of parts of the Anglican Communion are as alien as Rome. Instead, New Monastics find inspiration in two very different strands of Catholic religious life: The ancient cloistered Celtic monks, and the wandering Franciscan friars.
13. 10 Tips to Retain More of What You Read Online (HT: Lifehacker)
14. Continent-size toxic stew of plastic trash fouling swath of Pacific Ocean
In reality, the rogue bag would float into a sewer, follow the storm drain to the ocean, then make its way to the so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch - a heap of debris floating in the Pacific that’s twice the size of Texas, according to marine biologists.
The enormous stew of trash - which consists of 80 percent plastics and weighs some 3.5 million tons, say oceanographers - floats where few people ever travel, in a no-man’s land between San Francisco and Hawaii.
Marcus Eriksen, director of research and education at the Algalita Marine Research Foundation in Long Beach, said his group has been monitoring the Garbage Patch for 10 years.
"With the winds blowing in and the currents in the gyre going circular, it’s the perfect environment for trapping," Eriksen said. "There’s nothing we can do about it now, except do no more harm."
The patch has been growing, along with ocean debris worldwide, tenfold every decade since the 1950s, said Chris Parry, public education program manager with the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco.
(HT: Neatorama)
15. The Economist on Whataboutism:
Soviet propagandists during the cold war were trained in a tactic that their western interlocutors nicknamed “whataboutism”. Any criticism of the Soviet Union (Afghanistan, martial law in Poland, imprisonment of dissidents, censorship) was met with a “What about…” (apartheid South Africa, jailed trade-unionists, the Contras in Nicaragua, and so forth)….
For example: A caller to a radio program asks, “What is the average wage of an American manual worker?” A long pause ensues. Then the answer comes: “U nich negrov linchuyut” (“Over there they lynch Negroes”)—a phrase that, by the time of the Soviet collapse, had become a synecdoche for Soviet propaganda as a whole.
16. Seinfeld Science: the microbiological consequences of double dipping a chip into a bowl of dip:
The study, to be published later this year in the Journal of Food Safety, is the only one I’ve ever seen to proclaim that it was inspired by an episode of “Seinfeld.” It was conducted as part of a Clemson University program designed to get undergraduate students involved in scientific research. Prof. Paul L. Dawson, a food microbiologist, proposed it after he saw a rerun of a 1993 “Seinfeld” show in which George Costanza is confronted at a funeral reception by Timmy, his girlfriend’s brother, after dipping the same chip twice.
(HT: Kottke.org)
17. Putdown of the Week: "David Brooks is one of America’s most successful thinkers in much the same way that Thomas Kinkade, painter of light, is one of America’s most successful artists." -- Will Wilkinson
18. Study of starling formations points way for swarming robots
Scientists have uncovered a simple rule that explains how thousands of starlings flock in formation and hope to use the discovery in the future to coordinate swarms of robots….The results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, may be important for fields such as mobile robotics, where highly coordinated swarms of simple units such as robots must solve complex problems such as sweeping an area for surveillance, using simple rules.
(HT: Neatorama)
19. 117 things that have caused David Banner to “Hulk out.” (HT: The American Scene)
20. Stephen Prothero, Chairman, Department of Religion at Boston University, on the Biblical illiteracy of his students:
I think about one out of nine of my students would pass with 60 percent or better. And one thing that really intrigued me is, at the end, I would give them a list of Bible characters and then Bible stories and I'd ask them to match them. I'd have Adam and Eve and Paul and Moses on one side and, on the other side, I'd have Exodus and the Road to Damascus and the Garden of Eden. I'd ask them to draw a line between the two, and it's amazing - the lines that they would draw in their heads. Paul would be getting the olive branch from the dove and - Jesus would be parting the Red Sea. I mean, somebody must have been able to do that. It was probably Jesus, you know.
And again, these weren't obscure things. It wasn't even like David and Goliath things. And so now, when I read stories in magazines and newspapers--Appalachian State beats Michigan, or any other David and Goliath story - I always kind of laugh and think nobody knows that story. Most Americans probably don't know that reference to David and Goliath.
21. Vicki Gaines on so-called "biblical principles":
Living by biblical principles is not what defines the Christian life. That recipe makes for a rather behavior-focused life. You might even call it empty, pharisaical, performance-based living.
Christ is our LIFE. We aren't supposed to imitate Him. Neither can we draw life from principles, as good as they might be. Instead, we rely on Him to express His life through us. That, my friend, is what real Christianity is all about.
The focus is Christ. Because apart from Him, nothing we do will count anyway.
(HT: Transforming Sermons)
22. Things you can learn from Super Bowl ads
23. In this photo series called Wonderland (2005), Korean photographer Yeon Doo Jung brings children’s drawings into life - literally - by staging the scene with real people and props. (HT: Neatorama)
24. 5 Nastiest U.S. Presidential Elections in History
25. LOLCat of the Week
moar funny pictures
26. Reconciling God and Evil: The Options
27. The Myth Behind Emergency Room Delays
“Whenever journalists write about emergency room delays, they tend to oversimplify the problem, and they usually connect the increase in emergency room wait times to the increased percentage of uninsured patients. It’s true that the percentage of the uninsured is increasing, but all the research I’ve seen shows that the percentage growth in visits to emergency rooms is greater for insured patients than uninsured patients.
u“So it’s not about uninsured people, it’s about people in general. And the reason more people are going to the emergency room is that the wait time to get an appointment with a primary care physician has gone up to an average of three and a half weeks. There are just are not enough primary care physicians, and there’s no financial incentive to become a primary care physician when other specialties are much more high-paying.
28. Mere Orthodoxy on Marriage as a Spiritual Discipline:
Marriage, it seems provides a variety of symbols and contexts that allow for spiritual development in ways that are unavailable to the single person. While it may not be for everyone, the rich possibilities for spiritual development in the context of marriage take it a long way from being something that one enters into only as a last resort, and only as a tacit admission of one’s spiritual immaturity characterized by a pursuit of the flesh.
Researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia have found that while Internet searches do bring up a variety of useful materials, people pay more attention to information that matches their pre-existing beliefs.
"Even if people read the right material, they are stubborn to changing their views," said one of the authors, UNSW Professor Enrico Coiera. "This means that providing people with the right information on its own may not be enough."
30. Using the safety belt in the rear seats of the car reduces death risk by almost a half -- the use of this safety system in such seats reduces the risk of death by a 44 per cent.
31. Religious women less likely to get an abortion -- A new study in the journal Social Science Quarterly reveals that religious women are less likely to obtain abortions than secular women, not because religious women have stronger pro-life attitudes, but because religious women are more likely to lead a sexually conservative lifestyle.
32. Blue-eyed Humans Have A Single, Common Ancestor -- New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.
33. Frozen Grand Central Station
(HT: The Presurfer)
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4165
1
"Dispy"? That's a new one to me.
Was there a game last night?
Were the Cowboys or Packers playing?
I guess it was just another game, then.
Nothing really important.
;)
Collin
posted on 02.04.2008 6:38 AM2
While I mostly agree with Vicki Gaines on Biblical
posted on 02.04.2008 7:16 AMprinciples, I disagree with her statement that we shouldn't
seek to imitate Christ. Phil 2:5 says our attitude should
be the same as Christ's. I Peter 2:12 that we are to live good lives with good deeds. We see the best examples in the life of Christ. It is perhaps more of a "both...
and" than an "either ... or".
3
"Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?"
The types of Jews to which James Q. Wilson refers are apostates of their own faith. They don't support Israel themselves, swallowing the same "land for peace" swill as her detractors. Christians are very much aware of this dichotomy. Of course Jews are not monolithic. The affinity is among respective patriots. The rest are just traitors banding with traitors. Liberal Jews and the American left are perfect bedfellows.
posted on 02.04.2008 9:10 AM4
In James Kushiner's quote, surely conservatism that doesn't conserve virtue is simply another variation on the Fall. Or am I missing the point?
posted on 02.04.2008 9:17 AM5
Re: Mouw's Consumerism...
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=963
posted on 02.04.2008 9:40 AM6
The types of Jews to which James Q. Wilson refers are apostates of their own faith. They don't support Israel themselves, swallowing the same "land for peace" swill as her detractors.
My father-in-law once worked for a guy. He was getting paid well but when other opportunities presented themselves the boss gave him a raise rather than see him go. One day the boss put his arm around him and said "Patty, I love you like my own son". That night he went home and told his father he had to get out of there and he did.
I remember any more details so I can't tell you why he was freaked out by the man but sometimes people who think they are your best friends in the world can actually be pretty harmful...sometimes even more harmful than the guy who says outright that he doesn't like you and acts like it.
I'm not Jewish nor am I Israeli (and the two are not always the same thing). But I'd be pretty irked by someone who is not my faith presuming to lecture me about what my politics should be based on his reading of my faith.
Of course Jews are not monolithic. The affinity is among respective patriots. The rest are just traitors banding with traitors. Liberal Jews and the American left are perfect bedfellows.
Another source of some wisdom here is women. Why do women often not like the guy who professes love all the time? Perhaps because they sense that this type of fellow will be the first person to turn on them when they fail to live up to his expectations. Such a guy is more likely to end up as a psychopathic stalker than as the perfect husband.
Here Jeff Blogworthy demonstrates the principle nicely. The attempt to establish a relationship begins with lots of high minded talk about being brothers, linked together...how the Jews are the 'choosen people' etc. Then if the 'choosen people' take a position he thinks is wrong they become traitors. Needless to say, a little paranoia is a healthy thing. Whose to say such nutcases aren't going to resort to antisemitism as a next step to alleviate their disappointment?
It might be better to make friends with people who aren't given to such over the top views about your people. Take Buddhists, for example. They don't have any special affinity for Jews that's likely to degenerate into stalker type behavior.
posted on 02.04.2008 10:34 AM7
Re: dental work. Certainly ability to pay plays a role in the quality and amount of dental work a person receives, but don't discount the role of culture. Believe it or not, some people have never placed a high priority on dental health.
I recently saw a soldier in uniform, and I thought he was recruiting-poster handsome--until he smiled. He had--I'm not joking here--only two teeth in his mouth. Here was someone who could get all the free dental work he needed, but he apparently didn't care. I mentioned this to my dentist, who was trained by the Air Force and practiced in uniform for many years. He said it's true; even when the dental care is free, as in military care, a lot of people don't partake, even though they have rotten mouths.
posted on 02.04.2008 11:03 AM8
I'd be pretty irked by someone who is not my faith presuming to lecture me about what my politics should be based on his reading of my faith.
At least 42% probably are irked. Christians and Jews share the same moral law. The 42% just happen to be the same people who long ago rejected God's moral law. Imagine that.
Incidentally, your "stalker" analysis works much better applied to Democrats' declared affection for blacks. What happens to the those who dare to diverge from leftist orthodoxy? We know all too well. Witness Clarence and Condy. Even Obama is getting a taste. He apparently doesn't "know his place."
posted on 02.04.2008 11:32 AM9
Yet Jews don’t return the favor: in one Pew survey, 42 percent of Jewish respondents expressed hostility to evangelicals and fundamentalists.
Its kind of hard getting cozy with people who believe you deserve to spend an eternity in torment.
posted on 02.04.2008 12:16 PM10
Gene,
Dental work is somewhat unique in that it can get really expensive and there is NO such thing as good dental insurance. Even with the best plans you're still going to be laying out hundreds or thousands for serious dental work. I don't think the same can be said for eyecare.
I wonder if your experience has to do with culture or does it have more to do with the fact that some people simply are scared of the dentist and learn to live with tooth problems?
Jeff
At least 42% probably are irked. Christians and Jews share the same moral law. The 42% just happen to be the same people who long ago rejected God's moral law. Imagine that.
Notice how Jeff is true to form. What's the key indicator of being part of this 42% who "long ago rejected God's moral law"? Disagreeing with Jeff about the merits of any 'land for peace' deal. Be careful with the guy who puts you on a supernatural pedestal. When you disappoint him he is likely to get very nasty.
Incidentally, your "stalker" analysis works much better applied to Democrats' declared affection for blacks. What happens to the those who dare to diverge from leftist orthodoxy? We know all too well. Witness Clarence and Condy. Even Obama is getting a taste. He apparently doesn't "know his place."
I'm unaware of any serious democrat who has tried to assert that they should align with blacks because of any supernatural status blacks have....unless you're talking about the Nation of Islam or some other fringe group. Needless to say, it would probably be a good idea for any group to keep any such 'admirers' at arms length.
Moving beyond Jeff, I think there's some obvious reasons for why Jews might have a negative view of evangelicals:
1. Many vocal evangelicals have asserted that politics should be mixed with religion. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that, nice words to the contrary, there is a difference between the Jewish faith and the Christian faith. It isn't an irrational fear to wonder if Step #2 is going to be to drop the "Judeo" out of "Juedo-Christian" government.
2. A few suspect that 'support for Israel' carries with it some mixed motives. One is that Jews are being viewed as a means to an end (as in "once we get all the Jews in Israel, get them to rebuild the temple, and then X,Y,Z then all the stars align and Jesus comes back!"). Another is that it is a segway into domestic anti-semitism (as in "support Israel so all the Jews will want to move there and won't be here").
Now to be fair I'd say the vast majority of evangelicals are totally innocent of any of these beliefs but that really isn't enough. If you leave the door to them open then while you may not hold those beliefs it might become easier for those who follow you to quickly adopt them. Pat Robertson, for example, has written books whose premise is basically that modern history is being driven by a secretative cabal of mostly Jewish bankers and intellectuals. Do most 700 Club members/viewews/fans believe this? Of course not. But word does get around quickly doesn't it?
posted on 02.04.2008 12:26 PM11
Boonton
Yes, I'm sure fear of the dentist plays a role. But some people also fear doctors and hospitals, but that doesn't prevent them from seeking help when they really need it. (Okay, I guess there are extreme cases where even that doesn't happen.) But I think that some people, culturally, don't place a high premium on dental health, whether it be simple cosmetics like a nice smile or the actual health implications of gingivitis and the like. I don't know why, but I and others have noted it.
posted on 02.04.2008 12:39 PM12
Thanks for #8!
posted on 02.04.2008 12:45 PMJennifer F.'s description of her trip from pro-choice to pro-life helped me go a long way toward understanding the p-c mindset. I have always figured it as a conflict in priorities, but her focus on the dissonance in modern society between "sex is not a huge deal" and "becoming a parent is a huge deal" as a source of the problem highlights the necessity of abortion to people in our culture. Now I understand some of the p-c vehemence.
13
#5 since the promise of global capitalism, much like the promise of communism before it, ultimately demands an act of faith: that if we permit the destruction of certain things we value here and now we will achieve a greater happiness and prosperity at some unspecified future time.
There's an invalid assumption in this statement. We aren't giving up things we want in the here and now. We're getting things we want in the here and now. We're giving up things that Michael Pollan and Wendell Berry want in the here and now.
Pollan is displaying the same elitist disdain of consumerism that Richard Muow skewers in #1.
posted on 02.04.2008 12:56 PM14
Gene,
But how often do we 'really need' dental care? Many people live for a very long time with cavaties, missing teeth etc. A few months ago in the back of my mouth I lose a filling or part of it. I can feel it with the tip of my tounge. Of course it feels like a gapping hole but in the mirror it's hardly there. I just haven't gotten around to having it fixed yet. I know I should and I will eventually (in fact, since I'm paying for dental coverage it's a waste of money not too) but yet I dally.
On the other hand, if one of my toes had fallen off I'd be in the hospital right away...even if it was my little toe which I use for absolutely nothing and I doubt does anything to improve my cosmetic value
posted on 02.04.2008 1:23 PM15
Boonton
Good point. I guess the "damage" is so incremental many people don't notice.
By the way, don't write off your little toe. I badly sprained mine once (isn't that what bed posts are for?), and aside from the pain, the inability to put any weight on that side of the foot made it very hard to walk.
posted on 02.04.2008 1:51 PM16
Notice how Boonton likes to put words in the mouths of others. A large percentage of Jews have rejected God's moral law because - they have. The joining of the pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia political left is symptomatic. It is not difficult to find Jewish traditionalists who lament this fact. Boonton attempts to marginalize his ideological opponent by accusation of "nastiness."
Concerning antisemitism, Boonton might investigate the usage of the term "neo-con" - employed by leftists as a sly way of slandering conservative Jews.
See Norman Podhoretz' World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism for background.
posted on 02.04.2008 2:22 PM17
Jeff
Your childish mischaracterisations aside (and boy aint there a truck load of those), i d say the reason why so many jews dislike evengelicals has to do with a few pesky details in evengelical faith...namely the belief that at some point in the future,jews are all supposed to convert to christianity and that those who refuse will be destroyed. oh and maybe some of them arent yet over the centuries of persecution of jews by christians in Europe. Jews arent dupe...they are fully aware that evengelical support of the Jewish State is 100% conditional to their armaguedon beliefs.
posted on 02.04.2008 2:42 PM18
Babies.v.sex
The message I'd heard loud and clear was that the purpose of sex was for pleasure and bonding, that its potential for creating life was purely tangential, almost to the point of being forgotten about altogether.
The problem with the "sex is for procreation" crowd is that their ideology so ignores reality. Humans are unusual animals in that their reporduction is very, very labor intensive. They are even more unusual in that after they pull off reproduction they need to spend a lot of energy rearing their kids. Unlike, say, cats or dogs our kids don't start fending for themselves a few weeks after being born.
This leads to a very obvious conclusion, sex is for pleasure and bonding. You have to have that before you can even think about making kids. It's necessary because raising a kid is a lot of hard work and the most efficient way to divide it is between two people in most cases. Problem, though, is that it's very easy for at least one party to run off. Hence, you have sex which helps prompote bonding which helps keep at least one person in a couple hanging in there. Perfect? Of course not but that's the human condition and of all the animals on earth humans seem to have done pretty well for themselves.
What's strange about many pro-lifers is that they seem to be very much hip on babies but very sour on pleasure when the reality is there's really no way to divide the two. Yes you can make babies without sex, it's very expensive, awkward, and difficult and a lot less fun than using sex. So it's very strange to hear pro-lifers accusing pro-choicers of being in favor of, well, pleasurable sex.
Very often what follows is some variation on the accusation that abortion is all about sex. Pro-choicers must be obsessed with sex and want to have sex all the time and therefore we all need abortion least anything get in the way of non-stop sex. But this is quite frankly not reality.
Of course women who have abortions are or were sexually active but I have never known a single woman who had an abortion simply because she wanted to have more sex. Of course out of over a quarter billion people in the US I'm sure there are some people for whom that is true but it isn't the norm. Every woman who I have either known or hear of who had an abortion had one because she was facing a bad situation and 9 times out of 10 that situation was judged to be bad based on the needs of the child. In other words, "I can't afford a child now" or "I'm not emotionally able to have one" is a more common reason than "It would bother me" or (as pro-lifers seem to often think) "It will get in the way of me having one-night stands after meeting people at the club every weekend".
Now I'm not saying their reasons are correct but I am saying their reasons are rarely "More sex, less baby please". And I'm not surprised that even a former pro-choicer said that. Most people view abortion in very abstract terms since they doubt they will ever be in a situation where it will directly impact their lives. So it's quite easy for them to mischaracterize the people whose lives come a bit closer to abortion than simply reading about the debate in the newspaper or blogging it.
posted on 02.04.2008 3:05 PM19
The problem with the "sex is for procreation" crowd is that their ideology so ignores reality.
The good thing about the "sex is for pleasure" crowd is that they rarely have babies to pass their bizarre opinions on to. Evolution in action.
posted on 02.04.2008 3:27 PM20
80 percent of Jews are liberal--far left, moonbat, Al Franken liberal. Much of that is for one major reason--they hate evangelicals--who are overwhelmingly conservative. They hate evangelicals because (if there is ever a rational reason for such irrational hatred) they see Christians as responsible for the holocaust. I don't want to go there. We can argue all day about how some Christians were responsible for the ovens and how other Christians were responsible for hiding Jews from the Nazis.
There are Jews, a small percentage, who know that the best friends they have now are United States Christians. They know that Christians are probably the single biggest reason that Jews have found a home in the USA.
posted on 02.04.2008 3:28 PM21
"They know that Christians are probably the single biggest reason that Jews have found a home in the USA."
posted on 02.04.2008 4:26 PM...at least untill the moment comes when the evengelicals feel its time (armaguedon?) to put those jew "friends" to the biblical convert or be destroyed choice...
22
This leads to a very obvious conclusion, sex is for pleasure and bonding.
Setting snarkiness aside for the moment, the problem is that the feelings of bonding created by sex are not very resilient. There is a reason that traditionally, sex waited until after marriage and that was so that the prospective couple had a chance to get to know each other before the "fog of sex" got in the way, giving people "false feelings" of love and bonding. The reality is that when you do have kids, you don't have much time for sex, so those bonds are not going to be renewed. If the relationship is not strong, absent the "sexual bonding", the relationship may not survive. There is a real easy test though. The "sex for pleasure, before procreation" philosophy is a relatively new one, if it is true, the we should see stronger families now then we did 50-75 years ago. Do we? I don't think we can say that families are stronger now then they were in the first part of the 20th century.
posted on 02.04.2008 4:39 PM23
at least untill the moment comes when the evengelicals feel its time (armaguedon?) to put those jew "friends" to the biblical convert or be destroyed choice
Don't worry, lud, you won't ever see that day. Convertin' you heathen atheists is higher on the "What We Will Do When We Establish the Theocracy" List, than convertin' the Joos.
posted on 02.04.2008 4:42 PM24
It's kind of ironic that your Vicky Gaines post should follow your post on Biblical illiteracy. Although Biblical illiteracy does seem to be quite common among Chrsitian scholars.
Gaines states: "Christ is our LIFE. We aren't
supposed to imitate Him."
I'm not sure what she was meaning to say but a serious Christian should have at least recognized that her words directly contradict those of the Apostle Paul:
posted on 02.04.2008 5:23 PM1 Corinthians 11:1, NAS95 “Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.”
and also
Ephesians 5:1, NAS95.“Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children;”
and
1 Thessalonians 1:6, NAS95.“You also became imitators of us and of the Lord, having received the word in much tribulation with the joy of the Holy Spirit,”
25
God promised Abraham that He would bless those who blessed Abraham and curse those who cursed him. This country has been Israels best friend and a safe haven for almost half of the worlds jews. It's a good idea to continue to be such and a bad idea to be party to dividing the land for a false peace.
posted on 02.04.2008 5:39 PM26
Regarding #14:
Would it be too much trouble to have at least some kind of a picture of this continent-sized pollution stew? Really, if this is true, this is a perfect thing for all the environmentalists to get outraged about. It's especially good because you could have an actual picture of the problem. No doubt about the authenticity of the outrage-approaching-crisis, right? I'm surprised there isn't one.
And then just for scale and emotional pull maybe a sea lion floating on it, or some Democrat picking through the trash looking for items to recycle.
posted on 02.04.2008 6:12 PM27
Joe:
Richard Mouw seems to be saying that scholars don't have any more reason to switch churches than anyone else. He seems to be dissing his own kind, as if scholars make decisions based on whims and fancies as much as all the rest of us.
Seems kind of out of character, doesn't it? It's hard to imagine him making decisions that don't glorify the academic lifestyle he has chosen. Am I missing his point?
posted on 02.04.2008 6:20 PM28
jd, re #14:
If it's twice the size of Texas, unless it's really sparse, you should be able to see it on Google World...
posted on 02.04.2008 7:40 PM29
"The affinity is among respective patriots. The rest are just traitors banding with traitors. Liberal Jews and the American left are perfect bedfellows."
Comments like this poison the public discourse. How Coulteresque. How puerile. How disgusting.
posted on 02.04.2008 7:56 PM30
Evangelical Christians have a high opinion not just of the Jewish state but of Jews as people. That Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal doesn’t seem to bother evangelicals, despite their own conservative politics. Yet Jews don’t return the favor...
That's probably because Jews have heard so much hatred of other religions from all sorts of Christians, for CENTURIES, that they no longer trust Christians when they say they actually like persons of other religions. I certainly wouldn't blame them, especially after hearing a big-name evangelical like Oral Roberts saying "God does not hear the prayers of a Jew." And don't even get me started on Martin Luther's opinion of Jews.
Wilson thinks that most evangelicals support the Jews because they are dispensationalists.
Or because your prophecy says the world will end, and your Savior will show up, just as soon as Jews do their bit to hasten Armageddon.
While that is partially true, it does not account for the fact that the majority of non-dispys (like me) also support both the Jewish people (because anti-Semitism is corrosive and must be defended against) and Israel (because it is in our national interest to defend democratic allies in the Middle East).
So...if you changed your mind, and decided that anti-Semitism could be cohesive rather than corrosive (as it once was for Nazi Germany), or that Israel no longer was good for American interests, your opinion of Jews would change? And after saying something like that, you wonder why Jews don't like you?
posted on 02.04.2008 9:52 PM31
Setting snarkiness aside for the moment, the problem is that the feelings of bonding created by sex are not very resilient. There is a reason that traditionally, sex waited until after marriage and that was so that the prospective couple had a chance to get to know each other before the "fog of sex" got in the way, giving people "false feelings" of love and bonding.
On the contrary, the 'feelings of bonding' are quite resilient hence why sex is traditionally quarantined inside of marriage. If the feelings were not resilient, free love would generally work. No one would, say, kill someone over jealously and we would have a very hard time understanding the concept behind a 'crime of passion'.
Bonding is not always a good thing. It carries with it a cost as much as a benefit. But it is vital for humans because we are social creatures.
There is a real easy test though. The "sex for pleasure, before procreation" philosophy is a relatively new one, if it is true, the we should see stronger families now then we did 50-75 years ago.
As much as I would love to take credit for it ucfengr, there is ample evidence that human beigns were aware that sex is pleasurable long before. AS for comparing families, I have no idea how you would mount an objective test. What exactly are you measuring or are you just measuring some vague 'sense' you have that things were better 'back then'?
Raging Be
That's probably because Jews have heard so much hatred of other religions from all sorts of Christians, for CENTURIES, that they no longer trust Christians when they say they actually like persons of other religions.
I forgot to add, of all the religions on which you can say Cristians have a bad record of mistreatment...Judism takes the top prize. Yes, yes, some of this is due to the fact that for much of history the only non-Christian religion you found in Europe was Judism (leaving out the end of paganism & the Muslims in Spain). A lot of it is due to the fact that it took Christians a long time to make theological sense of Jews. It took a lot before the idea of Jews as "Christ killers" or as stubborn spoil sports for refusing to 'upgrade' their religion to Christianity was finally broken. The Catholic Church had to work hard to overcome that historical legacy, why should evangelicals get a pass especially when some notable ones still seem to want to flirt with the idea?
posted on 02.04.2008 10:49 PM32
On the contrary, the 'feelings of bonding' are quite resilient hence why sex is traditionally quarantined inside of marriage. If the feelings were not resilient, free love would generally work. No one would, say, kill someone over jealously and we would have a very hard time understanding the concept behind a 'crime of passion'.
No, they really aren't. I think you are confusing strength and intensity with resilience, the two are not the same. Regarding pre-marital sex, the reason that it is discouraged (or should be) is exactly because the feelings are very intense, but not very resilient. If they were resilient, you should be able to build a strong relationship based almost solely on infrequent sex (about the only kind you get once you have kids), but you can't.
As much as I would love to take credit for it ucfengr, there is ample evidence that human beigns were aware that sex is pleasurable long before.
I was hoping we could set snarkiness aside, but alas. I never argued that sex wasn't enjoyable, but it is not enough to build a relationship on. Certainly not one strong enough to put up with the stresses of raising children and all the other things that go with being an adult. This modern philosophy tries to separate pro-creation from sex, with the result being many intense, but ultimately short-lived relationships because the bonds created by sex are just not resilient enough to sustain a permanent relationship.
posted on 02.05.2008 7:08 AM33
Comments like this poison the public discourse. How Coulteresque. How puerile. How disgusting.
Perhaps. Or maybe just calling a spade a spade:
Murtha on Haditha: Jack Zimmermann, an attorney for Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum, one of the Marines accused in the death of 24 civilians in Haditha, is asking to depose Cong. John Murtha (D-PA) about his comment that a general told him that the accused and his squad killed in cold blood. [Proved false. The Haditha marines are exonerated. The traitorous left trumped up the "Haditha Massacre" to slander our troops. They continue to this day.]
Kennedy: "On March 19th, 2004, President Bush asked 'Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open?'
Shamefully we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management....U.S. management."
Durbin: In remarks on the Senate floor late Tuesday, Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, read the report of an FBI agent who described treatment of prisoners at Gitmo, including one detainee being held in such cold temperatures that he shivered, another who was held in heat passing 100 degrees and one who was chained to the floor and forced to listen to loud rap music.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," Durbin said.
Sheehan, the "Peace Mom" darling of the left: “The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush.”
These remarks are typical of those on the left, not isolated incidents.
Please. Lecture me some more about poisoned discourse.
posted on 02.05.2008 8:38 AM34
No, they really aren't. I think you are confusing strength and intensity with resilience, the two are not the same. Regarding pre-marital sex, the reason that it is discouraged (or should be) is exactly because the feelings are very intense, but not very resilient. If they were resilient, you should be able to build a strong relationship based almost solely on infrequent sex (about the only kind you get once you have kids), but you can't.
In other words you've made my point. Sex creates the bonds necessary to raise kids. By the time sex gets boring or unavailable due to time or age the bonds it created are there.
If it wasn't then as you say you could build those bonds easily without having sex at all. Not impossible but it doesn't come as easily.
The problem then is not so much pre-marital sex as extra-marital sex. Even many conservative families have kids who are living with partners that are tolerated. But even the most liberal of places tend to look down on extramarital affairs and when they happen they are almost always conducted either in secret or are very low key.
I was hoping we could set snarkiness aside, but alas. I never argued that sex wasn't enjoyable, but it is not enough to build a relationship on.
Ohhh sure, after you got yours in! I think the analogy we might agree on is that it is more of a catalyst. It's not part of the reaction itself but its presence speeds it up and gets it going.
Re:Jeff
These remarks are typical of those on the left, not isolated incidents.
Why is this fool complaining about a 'traitorous left' after telling us that any Jew who disagrees with his opinion about how Israel should settle its problems is a traitor and has turned his back on God?
posted on 02.05.2008 9:14 AM35
In other words you've made my point. Sex creates the bonds necessary to raise kids.
I think you are misinterpreting what I am saying, I am saying the exact opposite. Sex does not create the bonds necessary to raise kids or to form a long lasting relationship. What it does create is intense, but short lived bonds that will not withstand the rigors of life once the magic of "first sex" wears off. That is the real danger of pre-marital sex, it creates the illusion of bonds, but the reality is once the sex stops being interesting, the bonds quickly dissolve. That's why the bonding has to be there prior to sex and why pre-marital sex was traditionally discouraged.
posted on 02.05.2008 10:04 AM36
No, they really aren't.
Yes, actually, they are -- as anyone who still has feelings for a one-night-stand partner long after the one night can tell you.
Furthermore, good sex has a way of making relationships more resilient, regardless of whatever other feelings or priorities drive the relationship.
I never argued that sex wasn't enjoyable, but it is not enough to build a relationship on.
Maybe not, but it's often an indispensible part of an intimate relationship.
...you should be able to build a strong relationship based almost solely on infrequent sex (about the only kind you get once you have kids), but you can't.
Which "you" are you talking to? Do you really think you can generalize about something so unique as a personal intimate relationship?
This modern philosophy tries to separate pro-creation from sex, with the result being many intense, but ultimately short-lived relationships because the bonds created by sex are just not resilient enough to sustain a permanent relationship.
Given that most procreation still results from sex, I fail to see how any "modern philosophy" (as if there was only one) can separate the two. As for the cause of all those "ultimately short-lived relationships," I would say that: a) actual love and intimacy can always be "short-lived," however long the legal marriage may last; and b) today's high divorce rates are the result of more people being honest about their feelings and motives, instead of maintaining a pretense or facade of love long after the real thing went away.
Jeff: all you're doing is equating criticism of US policy with "treason," just as the British tried to do to the Founders; and just as every two-bit failed politician tries to do when he can't defend his actions any other way. Your pathetic dig on Sheehan -- a grieving mother of one of those brave soldiers you claim to support -- was especially unmanly and low. I don't agree with what she said, but are you really so insecure that you can't let a grieving mother be? Yes, you really do need a few more lectures about poisoned debate. Man up already!
posted on 02.05.2008 10:29 AM37
Raging Bee
I wouldn't mix it up too much with Jeff. He defends torture yet bristles when someone points out that torture was a policy of nasty regimes. His defense is to cherry pick some quotes that make Hitler comparisions (which is easy to do since a Hitler comparision is like a Hail Mary Pass, highly likely to fail & end up being embrassing). Isn't it interesting that he does this when a very well known conservative has made a fool of himself writing a book whose argument essentially is "Liberals like organic farming, Hilter liked oranic farming so Nazis invented liberalism"
Back to sex and the single ucfengr!
This modern philosophy tries to separate pro-creation from sex, with the result being many intense, but ultimately short-lived relationships because the bonds created by sex are just not resilient enough to sustain a permanent relationship.
Take an old world family. How many kids? 10, 12? Even 16?! The fact is undeniable that even a very sexually inactive couple will have a lot more sex than could ever be needed for procreation. And I mean a lot more. For every kid there's probably 20, 30, 40 even 100 sex acts in a lifetime. Saying sex is primarily to procreate therefore is a little bit like saying a DVD player is primarily to play family videos because you do that once a year or so despite the fact that every other day it's churning through your Netflix selections.
Yes people do have short-lived relationships but rarely as many as you imply they do because of 'modern philosophy'. Think about it, how many single people who are a bit older do you really know whom you can describe as having numerous brief relationships? Very few, most people seem to settle into long term relationships (even if not life long) & even if they don't they tend to mellow out with age. The Quagmire character from "Family Guy" is more the exception than the rule. Even "first sex" loses its novelty.
posted on 02.05.2008 11:02 AM38
RB:
...all you're doing is equating criticism of US policy with "treason,"
Baloney. The casting of American policy - as well as her troops - as morally equivalent to the worst despotic regimes in history is not mere "criticism of U.S. Policy" and you know it.
...are you really so insecure that you can't let a grieving mother be?
I see. The 'grieving mother' can make herself into a public spectacle for anti-American sentiment, challenge President Bush to meet with her, thrust herself in front of every camera and print reporter she can find - but she must NEVER be challenged or the subject of criticism. For anyone to do so is equivalent to abuse. Thanks for clearing that up.
Sheehan dishonors her son and her family, who have issued their own statements on the matter. I will not be cowed by an intellectually dishonest emotional appeal. It looks as though you are the one hiding behind the apron strings.
Boonton:
Let's say that al-Qaeda demands that we surrender our entire West coast as the "price for peace" - all the while insisting that they will ultimately wipe us off the face of the earth. Perhaps you would consider surrender to their demands a patriotic act. I do not. It is hardly a simple matter of "those who disagree with me." You are welcome to redefine my remarks in the light most favorable to yourself. Onlookers will not be fooled.
posted on 02.05.2008 11:08 AM39
The casting of American policy - as well as her troops - as morally equivalent to the worst despotic regimes in history is not mere "criticism of U.S. Policy" and you know it.
Yes, it is indeed nothing but criticism. Lame and stupid criticism, to be sure, but that's not "treason," otherwise you and your fellow Republicans would be on trial for "treason" too (remember your criticism of Clinton and his military policies? You didn't equate criticism with "treason" then).
The 'grieving mother' can make herself into a public spectacle for anti-American sentiment, challenge President Bush to meet with her, thrust herself in front of every camera and print reporter she can find - but she must NEVER be challenged or the subject of criticism.
You could ignore her and concentrate on critics who matter. Instead, you made her the center of attention by pretending for several years that she was some dire threat to America, and making the public more sympathetic to her every time you trashed her. If Cindy Sheehan is a threat to anything, she's a threat you haters helped to create.
Boonton: Let's say that al-Qaeda demands that we surrender our entire West coast as the "price for peace" - all the while insisting that they will ultimately wipe us off the face of the earth. Perhaps you would consider surrender to their demands a patriotic act...
I notice you don't actually quote Boonton himself saying anything even close to this. That's because Boonton never DID say any such thing; and you have to make up ridiculous inferences like this just to make yourself sound credible. Boonton and I have stated facts, and your only response is name-calling and made-up "treason" charges. It's perfectly obvious you have no interest in discussing any real-world events or issues, and are unwilling, if not unable, to engage honestly with other adults. Buh-bye.
posted on 02.05.2008 11:29 AM40
Perhaps the stupidest hypothetical yet posted here....and that's even including Joe's infamous 'placenta eaters'!
posted on 02.05.2008 11:53 AM41
I notice you don't actually quote Boonton himself saying anything even close to this. That's because Boonton never DID say any such thing;
Come now, RB. You are more intelligent than that. If you will read our exchange from the beginning you will see that my illustration is a parallel with Israel to make a point. It is perfectly logical. You or Boonton can say "That's different" if you like, hollow as it will ring.
It is easy to insist that other's give up their possessions while detachedly sipping cafe latte from the lounger. It is different when it is expected of you. But then, that is the whole liberal paradigm.
posted on 02.05.2008 12:05 PM42
It's also easy to insist that others fight wars in which you have no stake, and in which you won't get shot, while detachedly impugning their manhood from your lounger. Your point...?
Guess what -- right or wrong, not all people who advocate Israeli withdrawal from their occupied territories are sitting in loungers well away from the consequences. Some of them are, you know, Israelis! In Israel! You'd understand this yourself if you actually got out of your lounger and studied the situation once in awhile.
posted on 02.05.2008 1:16 PM43
Then again it's just as easy to sip that latte telling people thousands of miles away not to settle and call them traitors if they do. Certainly Jeff knows that "land for peace" is an idea that is being considered by actual Israelis right?
posted on 02.05.2008 2:17 PM44
"Please. Lecture me some more about poisoned discourse."
In other words, slandering the opposition is O.K. if some on the other side do it to you. Glad we got that straight. I just hope you don't think anyone other than the nuttiest nuts on your side take you seriously as a commenter.
posted on 02.05.2008 7:22 PM45
Regarding RB & Boonton,
We've all have our say and I don't want to belabor the point. You get the last word.
Rob:
Your rebuttal is implicitly dishonest. I am speaking the truth about the opposition, not slandering them. This is not a "game" of tit for tat. That which you admit are slanders were committed by U.S. Senators on the senate floor - not by Blow Joe with a keyboard. The damage caused can never be taken back or undone. Those men are traitors and those who stand with them are traitors. All the bluster in the world is not going to change that. Men of such low character should be called to account by somebody, even if it's a nobody like me. If that makes me nutty, then so be it.
posted on 02.05.2008 8:35 PM46
I'd like to thank Boonton and Raging Bee for being such good examples of the Babies as the enemy of sex crowd.
posted on 02.05.2008 11:54 PM47
The damage caused can never be taken back or undone.
And what damage, exactly, was that?
posted on 02.06.2008 10:41 AM48
If anyone is guilty of "treason," it's the Republicans who ignored warnings about terrorist attacks in the US, then invaded Iraq under pretenses that have all been proven false, got thousands of Americans killed in the process, and got US forces so tied down that we are now virtually unable to respond to REAL threats from places like Iran, Pakistan, Somalia, and even Afghanistan.
Crying about liberal "treason" is nothing more than another cowardly attempt to divert attention from your own party's betrayal of everything your country stands for. You're not fooling anyone. (And besides, those statements by Kennedy and Durbin were right, and you know it.)
posted on 02.06.2008 10:51 AM49
"I am speaking the truth about the opposition, not slandering them."
Hogwash. Spin it any way you wish, Jeff. You wrote this: "The rest are just traitors banding with traitors. Liberal Jews and the American left are perfect bedfellows."
You have branded millions of liberal Americans and Israelis who seek reconciliation as traitors. It is dishonest and indefensible, not "the truth".
"That which you admit are slanders were committed by U.S. Senators on the senate floor - not by Blow Joe with a keyboard."
Whoa! Don't get carried away, pal. I have NOT endorsed that characterization of the senators' remarks. I wrote: "In other words, slandering the opposition is O.K. if some on the other side do it to you." By "some" I refer to Sheehan and those who agree with her characterization of Bush as a terrorist. Hard to blame her, though; her son is dead because our president makes stupid decisions. Which of your children are dead because of liberals and softy Israelis? Murtha's statement is hearsay: blame the general who spoke to him or prove the conversation never took place. Kennedy and Durban may be guilty of slight exaggeration, but certainly not slander. They are, in fact, essentially correct. It is bizarre to see Christians defending such evil as that decried by these men.
"The damage caused can never be taken back or undone."
The damage that cannot be taken back or undone is that perpetrated by this administration.
posted on 02.06.2008 5:53 PM50
wow powerleveling Ingame Trade Tutorial. We wow powerleveling now introduce our enhanced delivery method, which is a safer and faster way to wow powerleveling with our customers. wow powerleveling Ingame Trade Tutorial. We wow powerleveling now introduce our enhanced delivery method, which is a safer and faster way to wow powerleveling with our customers. powerleveling Ingame Trade Tutorial. We powerleveling now introduce our enhanced delivery method, which is a safer and faster way to powerleveling with our customers. 6787673@WOWGOLDS.COM
posted on 02.19.2008 1:53 AM